[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 07:24:46PM +0200, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
>On Mon, May 11, 2015, at 19:00, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
>> Why, a policy could be enacted that retroactively invalidates
>> allocation/assignment criteria, resulting in LIRs having to
>
>It is not retroactive, and it does not change the allocation criteria.
>It only changes transfer rules, and my understanding is that it will
>only apply from the moment it becomes policy (at best, more realistic is
>the time NCC is ready to implement, which may be some days/weeks later).

The IA states that it will be retroactively applied to resources
already allocated but not (yet?) transferred. It changes the
allocation criteria insofar as it is, until now, implied that an
allocation can be transferred immediately - even if that isn't
explicitly stated.

>What you say is suggesting the fact that obtaining an allocation for the
>sole purpose of transfer is acceptable behaviour, and I suppose most
>people here don't agree with that.

Until the proposal passes and is implemented, it *is* acceptable
(or at least legal) behaviour.

rgds,
Sascha Luck